I can remember a well publicized story of a Sydney footballer, who having received a serious cervical injury, proceeded to "change" his autonomous sexual bias; given some shards of broken bone had pierced the Ganglia obligarta at the base of the skull; and destroyed those sex drive centres that had till then; made him a women loving alpha male hetrosexual.

It took around a year we're told, for the transformation to become complete?

Today he is a Sydney hairdresser

Then there's the case of a scottish paedophile, [reported in my copy of a seventies english publication called science fact,] up before the beak for the third time for the same offense!

This buggerer of boys was given just two choices; attend a medical research clinic and volunteer for a trial, where tiny electrodes were inserted into the Ganglia obligarta, to burn out the inappropriately firing sex control centres, [ he was firing on all four,] and the probable reason for his autonomous sexual behavior?

Or remain incarcerated for the term of his natural life!

Naturally, he volunteered to take part in the trial.

The Scottish Professors inserted tiny electrodes right into the Ganglia and burnt out those normally appropriate for normal females, and just waited for the results.

Inside a year his abnormal behavior completely changed, and at last report he was a happily married man with a wife and kids, and never happier in his life.

Even so, these sex drive centres cannot be switched on and off as espoused by those who rigidly believe that there is an element of choice here; and given that is so, should cease persecuting folks who just didn't get a say in their completely autonomous sexual bias; preference implying another actual option/choice.

Just not true for the damaged Sydney footballer or those born with his affliction!

But nonetheless equal before the law in every sense but one, and something people of genuine goodwill to man, would change, given none of us get to choose who we fall in love with, or who we are!
Rhrosty.

Great article, thanks!

Dear Rhrosty,

Are you claiming that there is a circuit in the human Ganglia obligarta which causes us to become desperate for a piece of paper from the government? Would it be possible to cheat that centre, with or without electrodes, if you printed your own marriage certificate?

Yuyustu; Yes all our entirely autonomic behavior, sexual, fight or flight responses are located in that centre. Just as I'm claiming we have a cerebral cortex with somewhere around fifty billion circuits; that from time to time are actually engaged by some folk, as they take in new information?

Always providing they can tolerate the burning smell emanating from previously unused cerebral circuits? Yes I did study human anatomy and physiology. Even managed a 98% averaged, pass.

However as alleged in your, [ You claim stuff;] I didn't write even so much as a single chapter or invent the content! It was known and recorded for prosperity, long before I was so much as a tilt in my Daddy's kilt

However to be fair I haven't studied your barely functioning brain. I mean there is at least one example of a former soldier functioning with just half a brain!

Who knows he might just have company? Suggest you start with the flat earth society, and try the smoking brain dept, given it applies to a time period more appropriate to your current belief system?

Y'all have a nice day now y'hear.
Rhrosty

Bigotry by any other name. It's not hard, what logical reason do we stop same sex couples the right to marry? it was a small change to make it only between a man and a women. It's a small change to change it back.

If only I could/knew how to post a meme, this would be the ideal circumstance to post the well-known "Picard double facepalm" meme - for when a single-handed facepalm is not enough.

As a general point, it is by turns ludicrous, exasperating and amusing to see people on forums like this, on TV, in their blogs and on newssites complaining about how they are being silenced and they are unable to speak.

What is this "disgraceful barrage"? What is "disgraceful" is people, particularly that minority of Christians who interpret their Bible as being against SSM (and if you are one of those, don't argue with me, argue with your fellow Christians who think otherwise) who try and enforce their views against others, including by way of non-arguments such as this one.

It is popular, among those who want to enforce intolerant views to complain about being called "bigots", and similar. I see an undertone of that here.

Well, if the shoe fits, etc.

A bigot just is a person who has a negative view about a group of people, or wants members of that group to be treated less favourably, with no grounds to do so.

There are no sound grounds to have negative views about sexuality and gender diverse people. None of "I think so", "god said", "think of the children", or any of those arguments are sound grounds to restrict marriage to heterosexual, cissexual couples.

So, we can even do it by modus ponens

Premise: all people who have unfounded negative views about a group are bigots.

Premise: you have unfounded negative views about a group.

Conclusion: you are a bigot.

Sorry 'bout that, but, it's also untrue that I have respect alternative views: I respect that individuals have views, but I am calling out the views for what they are.

"in public discourse and where millions of dollars and countless hours of time are being wasted, there is no room for emotional manipulation."

If it's such a trivial and unimportant issue, why is it being fought so hard against? I would like to see the evidence for "millions of dollars". I note that it's the anti-lobby that brought Katy "since I became a Christian I realised my upbringing hurt me because Bible" Faust out here.

What is this "emotional manipulation". I think arguing against SSM on the basis of interests of the child, when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights of the child, counts as emotional manipulation, but I am not sure what is emotionally manipulative about some people asking for recognition of their relationships in the same manner as existing heterosexual relationships.

all the rights stuff: I think there is a bunch of non-sequiturs in there, but the key point is that there is a difference to be denied having a right, and whether or not one exercises it. I have the right to play golf. I don't, the very thought bores me to tears. But would it be OK to prohibit my class of humans (overweight white bald straight cis-males) from playing golf, because I don't want to play? Of course it wouldn't.

Indeed there are gender and sexuality-diverse people who oppose marriage full-stop, and/or don't intend to get married, who fight for marriage equality on precisely the basis that having a right, and exercising it, are different things. It would be nice if white straight cis-males could stop lecturing other people about what they want.